It Just Doesn't Jive

The latest article by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post tackles how Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan jives with the Bush Doctrine. Or rather -- how it doesn't.

Bush says that the West needs to stop excusing Arab dictators, hoping to purchase stability at the price of liberty. But what is Sharon's disengagement plan if not this? Retreating and getting nothing in return will never be appreciated by the Arabs. It will achieve quite the opposite, as evidenced by an interview with Hamas spokesman Ahmed al-Bahar in MK Azmi Bishara's Web site, www.Arabs1948.com.

"All indications show that since its establishment, Israel has never been in such a state of retreat and weakness as it is today, following more than four years of the intifada," he continued. "Hamas's heroic attacks exposed the weakness and volatility of the impotent Zionist security establishment. The withdrawal marks the end of the Zionist dream and is a sign of the moral and psychological decline of the Jewish state. We believe that the resistance is the only way to pressure the Jews."

I think most of us who follow the situation in the Middle East knew this was how Hamas was going to spin it.

It took a while for the significance of Sharon's plan to become clarified for Israelis. As recently as last month, many voices on the Left were still questioning whether Sharon had something up his sleeve that they didn't know about. Yet as time passed, and Sharon became increasingly shrill in his defense of his policies – while demonizing and firing anyone who voiced opposition to or doubt about the wisdom of his plans – its significance sunk in for everyone.

Given the total disconnect between the Bush Doctrine, which places the onus for change on the Arabs by calling for their democratization and eschewal of terrorism, and the Sharon plan, which makes no demands whatsoever on the Palestinians...

So why in the world is Bush supporting this plan (or worse, propelling it)? There is a theory, and it's espoused by Norman Podoretz, an intellectual whom Glick admires greatly:

...if the Palestinians continue to attack Israel after the IDF evacuates the Jewish communities and withdraws from the areas, Israel will be free to take any action it deems necessary to secure itself. He claims that because of Bush's commitment to the Bush Doctrine, the Arab world will now be forced to enact reforms that will transform the Palestinians' operating environment in a manner that will force them to give up terror.

While Glick is fine with debating the merits of this stance, what she finds even more interesting is what he's left out -- explaining exactly what Israel gains from this maneuver. And the reason is because Israel gains nothing.

The fact that the current policy of expulsion and retreat is being enacted by Sharon – the great general and right-wing tactician – is a source of confusion for many who are looking for a catch that will explain and justify his adoption of a radical, left-wing plan. Hopefully, once the supporters of Israel – who, like Podhoretz, were brave enough to ignore the conformist pressures and oppose Oslo – come to accept the fact that Sharon's policy involves many risks but provides no opportunities, they will not hesitate to disavow it. And again, hopefully, at that point they will demand that the US policy toward the Palestinians be brought into line with the Bush Doctrine.

I keep hoping for an 11th hour rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick by Sharon, but I don't see how it can happen.